Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

sabri writes "Jen Palmer tried to order something from kleargear.com, some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone. The merchandise never arrived and she wrote a review on ripoffreport.com. Now, kleargear.com is reporting her to credit agencies and sending collectors to fetch $3,500 as part of a clause which did not exist at the alleged time of purchase. 'By email, a person who did not identify him or herself defended the $3500 charge referring again to Kleargear.com's terms of sale. As for Jen being threatened — remove the post or face a fine — the company said that was not blackmail but rather a, "diligent effort to help them avoid [the fine]."' The terms and conditions shouldn't even apply, since the sales transaction was never completed."

What's so great about ThinkGeek anyway? When it comes down to it, they're basically just a seller of novelty gadgets and boys toys with a geek-oriented marketing angle.

You really don't know?

I've ranted about them previously, but to tl;dr that, the problem is that in (rather successfully) using this angle to sell their gimmicks, they presented and promoted a relentlessly consumerist view of what it is to be a geek... both by exploting the need to identify and belong (show how much of a proud geek and/or fan of this geek-popular TV show you are by owning this gizmo!) and by flattery (owning this stuff shows that you're clever!).

They seem to have been one of the first places I know of to cater to geeks. They don't just have look it's shinny things, but things, even if they are toys, that are interesting in their own right.

I put the part in bold from his comment but it seems it was masked by the quote.

"they're basically just a seller of novelty gadgets and boys toys with a geek-oriented marketing angle." is why.

It was the first popular one stop shop for most of the cool and interesting crap I could waste my money on. They seemed to focus more on fun then necessity too. They came up with witty slogans and put them on everything and it is something that a lot of geeks either "just got" or wondered why it wasn't obvious to them once they figured it out.

In short, the reason is because they are or were the Cabelas of the geek world even if their crap was cheaply made and overly priced.

That's how the system is supposed to work. I'm assuming you went to small claims court, right? Small claims courts can't offer injunctive relief (i.e., a court order compelling her to keep the animal off your property), all they can do is offer monetary relief, and you didn't have any monetary damages.

Frankly I think that's a pretty silly thing to sue over and it must have made you really popular in the neighborhood. There's a ton of effective ways to keep cats out of your yard, ranging from harmless (garden hose) to nasty (anti-freeze), hardly seems like something worth dragging the courts into.

That's 50+ years in jail. If it was a person, there wouldn't be a problem.

You say this in jest, but I know a person who killed a human being directly with her automobile while drunk and received probation. This person's girlfriend accidentally killed a pet rabbit by not remembering to feed it, and she is facing jail time.

She let a rabbit *starve* to death. Think about that for a minute. You don't "accidentally forget" to feed an animal in your care for days on end. That is animal abuse plain and simple and would also fall into the category of torture. Both of these are (low-level) felonies in all states to the best of my knowledge.

To be honest, both of these people sound like the dregs of society and not anyone I would want to admit associating with.

As long as you satisfy all of the natural instincts that your cat has that she would otherwise satisfy for herself outside, then it's fine to keep a cat indoors. Otherwise, it's not very humane and it sounds a little selfish on your part.

My natural instincts tell me that bacon slathered in gravy and topped with cheese is delicious. My natural instinct says "I'd hit it" about eight times a day. My natural instinct is to punch that asshole square in the mouth.

I have a brain capable of rational thought, though, so I eat vegetables, sleep with my wife, and refrain from hitting people.

I hope you're not so cruel as indulge all of your cat's natural instincts.

Stopping my cat from assisting in the destruction of the local ecosystem is selfish? Keeping her away from traffic, aggressive dogs, and asshole humans is selfish? Preventing her from getting fleas and ticks is selfish?

Yes. It is selfish. You want to jail your cat so you know when and how it dies. That's selfish. I've lost a cat. I swear the damn thing waved good-bye before taking off. We never saw it again, but there were many cat homes in the neighborhood, so I expect it shacked up with someone more desirable. My cats have all been outdoor cats. The first that joined the family after me lived to just about 20, as an outdoor cat. Died of AIDS, leukemia, and some other diseases, all hitting at right about the same

> one way to prevent it is to (humanely) catch it and take it to the nearest animal shelter/control where she can pick it up.

If her cat was vaccinated against FIV and the shelter doesn't have enough cage space to keep him or her in his or her own cage, that little stunt could get the cat killed within minutes of arrival at the shelter... BEFORE they even bother to check for a microchip.

FIV vaccine should be banned... or at the very least, veterinarians should be required to disclose to cat owners that th

True, and to earn the hatred of all cat owners.Besides, a hose, supersoaker, or the like works well.On the other hand, if you don't want to sit around waiting to soak the local felines, just go buy some of the scent based repellents. There are a number of them for sale in pet stores, and a bunch of old fashioned recipes you can make yourself.Killing or maiming someones pet is just going to get you in so much shit the cat poop would seem to be gold nuggets in comparison.(I know one person that ended up moving over the harassment he got when he shot a neighbors cat. Also, every potted plant and his entire lawn died. It's assumed that one or more persons put herbicide on all of them.)Same thing with dogs. Actually, any family pet.

The antisocial people are the ones who let their dogs roam wild. I've had two cats in my life that were killed by dogs. Both were in my yard. And I've observed other dogs (also off-leash) chase my cat through my yard. I was a kid for the first one, but on both other occasions I reminded the dog owner that they should consider themselves notified that I felt threatened by their pet, and that failure to follow the leash laws and control a dangerous animal was ample grounds for me to defend myself with deadly force. The second time a pet died, it was the neighbor's dogs who did it. They got out all the time, even menaced my wife in the garage (and she's a lifelong dog owner, knows how to handle them well). After I told her that the next time I saw them in my yard, I would return them in the same condition as my cat, they stopped getting out. That was over five years ago. Zero escapes since then. Amazing how that works.

yeah but judges and juries aren't stupid. they know the difference between "somebody securing his/her premesis" and "somebody being a jerk to annoy his/her neighbors." they're likely to say "knock it off"

Doesn't matter, you can still go to jail for cruelty to an animal for shooting one with a BB gun - in some areas it's a felony. It's not all that much different than if you shot their kid with a BB. "Bah, it's only a small welt" isn't going to convince the judge...

Where I grew up, shooting a kid with a shotgun (loaded with rock salt) was considered an object lesson about property rights, and we'd have been shocked if anyone went to jail for it. How times have changed.

Yeah, tell us more of this nonsense.A shotgun loaded with rocksalt can as easily kill one as it was loaded with lead.So you did it? And you where lucky not to kill anyone? And now you are bragging about it?Wow, impressive...

A shotgun loaded with rocksalt can as easily kill one as it was loaded with lead.

Not beyond about 3 feet, rocksalt isn't exactly aerodynamic (plus sine you have to load those yourself in the first place, it's not like you're going to use a full charge.

So you did it? And you where lucky not to kill anyone? And now you are bragging about it?

Did you miss the part about "where I grew up". Buddy of mind got shot - stings like a bitch. I got bit by dogs set on me. We both did a lot of running away.

But those were different times - you'd walk out into the woods in the morning, and parents wouldn't care where you were till sunset (and no one wore pads to ride anything, though you could wear a particularly heavy coat while sledding and not be taken for a wimp needing a good beating).

Where I grew up, shooting a kid with a shotgun (loaded with rock salt) was considered an object lesson about property rights, and we'd have been shocked if anyone went to jail for it. How times have changed.

I remember at 12-13 yo in the mid-'70s, the family lived for a time (father in civil service-transfers were fast-track grade advancement) in south-central MS near the eastern MS/western AL border. There was this old farmer that raised huge patches of watermelons and strawberries that all the kids knew would shoot at you with this old break-action double-barrel 12ga loaded with rock-salt shells (though he couldn't see at distance worth beans) if he spotted you in his fields (and sometimes actually grazed the occasional slow/careless kid with a piece or two, usually one kid a season).

Everybody in the surrounding area knew this and him, including the police & sheriff. That was the way things had been for as long as many if not most who lived there could remember, even as they were kids.

Nobody even thought to call the police. They'd have simply told you that "...you ought-not to be a-trespassin' on no private prop-perty. Ev'rbody know the ol' man'll light bee-hines wit rocksalt if'n he catches ya in is fields! Ya'll'll get hurt ya keep it up, an' if we gotsta carry ya'll to the horsepital, we'd be 'bliged to charge ya'll wit trespass." (there *were* signs).

The old boy sat in a rocking chair on his porch and typically never even stood to shoot. The range was like anywhere from 60 to 100-plus yards. He also loaded these shells of his really light on powder charge. If you had on jeans all you'd get is a nice welt if you were closer.

The only two times I remember any blood having been drawn or any skin penetration or other injury (other than self-inflicted) occurring was when the two kids in question didn't pay attention, had gotten far too close, and were wearing shorts. Only one small piece barely penetrated skin both times, though from the way they'd each screamed at the time, I'm sure it burned like hell.

The first "strawberry-heart" medal-winner popped out the little salt fragment with his own thumbnails, wiped it hydrogen peroxide, stuck a band-aid on it, and carried on. Next season, the other medal-winner's piece of salt was so small it had dissolved before the kid had stopped running, and left but a single drop of blood, a welt, and a painful memory.

I was always careful to stay at the edge of his range, kept real low, and never stayed long or ate/took very much on the occasions I was pressured to join in. We didn't hurt the old man's harvest. He had these huge fields, but a lot of what grew he never picked and it rotted in the fields.

I do "distinctly* remember what the sound of rock salt sounds like whizzing around/past you from a 12ga, some making weird "ricochet"-type whining, moaning, or buzzing sounds, striking vegetation around you, etc.

Nothing like it to get those legs really moving!

It's downright motuh-VAY-shunul!:D

CoD!?!? Bah! Back in *my* day, we went out unarmed and deliberately got shot at with *real* guns just for *fun*!!!:D

Hundreds of negative things here, but instead of one-word posts, the clause should be posted.

BUYER BEWAREIn an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees.

Should you violate this clause, as determined by KlearGear.com in its sole discretion, you will be provided a seventy-two (72) hour opportunity to retract the content in question. If the content remains, in whole or in part, you will immediately be billed $3,500.00 USD for legal fees and court costs until such complete costs are determined in litigation. Should these charges remain unpaid for 30 calendar days from the billing date, your unpaid invoice will be forwarded to our third party collection firm and will be reported to consumer credit reporting agencies until paid.

Really they should discover how their State's Attorney General works.I'm a strong advocate for Corporate Death Sentences and banning corporate officers from owning or running another corporation for X years.

This is always *my* reaction. In my state, you don't have to hire a lawyer most of the time for this kind of thing. You call the state AG's consumer protection office and they contact the firm that's harassing you. Once they (or their lawyers, or assignees or whatever) find out you don't have to hire a lawyer yourself, they back off fast. Their game is picking on people who can't defend themselves.

If your state doesn't work this way, then you should elect a different state government.

In my state, you don't have to hire a lawyer most of the time for this kind of thing. You call the state AG's consumer protection office and they contact the firm that's harassing you. Once they (or their lawyers, or assignees or whatever) find out you don't have to hire a lawyer yourself, they back off fast.

I don't want them to "back off," I want their cancerous behaviors to be permanently excised from the public sphere:1. Corporate charters revoked (aka the death penalty)2. Civil enforcement actions banning the officers from holding any similar position.3. State Bar Associations revoking the licenses of any lawyers involved in the shitbaggery.

"But that's anti-business"1. Only insomuch as those businesses are anti-me.2. The same thing was said about 40 hour work weeks, child labor laws, and every other meaning

All this diligent effort to quash her negative review or help them avoid supposed fines - too bad none of that effort couldn't be put to satisfying the customer in the first place or correct their mistake.

since that kleargear fine hit our (actually, it was my husband's report, not mine) credit, we've been consistently denied for various financing... incluing trying to get our furance replaced when it died on us last month. we had to get a second car for my husband's new job, and it took them a month to find a bank willing to finance us all because of this bullshit charge on our credit.

Making a false report to a credit agency runs into laws with real teeth. It's one of the few places where you're personally and criminally liable for how you do business, even if you work for a big corporation.

The Federal Law also allows state attorneys general to file suit on behalf of tax papyers in credit reporting cases. A local lawn care service accidentally submitted an already paid bill of mine to a collections agency. The Alabama Attorney General's Office was not amused and forced them to write a letter explaining themselves to me and then suggested that I sue the company which by then had seen the error in their ways.

Credit agencies do not simply whack whatever Joe Website tells them in their database, such a database would be fucking useless to its other customers and they would end up taking their business to a less naïve agency. All the legal/marketing bullshit in the world will not save an agency trying to sell a worthless service.

Having said that, if you think like a loser you will be treated like one, grow a pair and stand up to the hollow threats of corner-shop bullies. It's easier than you think because

I just moved. I live in a country that doesn't allow the horrible reporting cartels. There is no "credit score" here. I used to get my creadit report every chance I could (for free) - once a year plus every time I was denied credit (you can trigger that by applying for a card with information that conflicts the report, then you get a free look at the report, for a cost of about 10 points for having another recent credit check against it). Having an active dispute against me didn't seem to hurt the score

First, it's not clear a contract was established. And even if it was, unilateral changes generally are unenforceable. And even if it were there when the attempted purchase was attempted, this is an unconscionable contract clause, against public policy (1st amendment, etc) and should be thrown out.

This person's best bet is to dispute the credit reports, counter sue for whatever they can think of to recover legal fees.

If it were me, I'd just send them a letter telling them to go F themselves and I'll see you in court. Bring it. My lawyer, however, would likely wish that I not do that.

Well, honestly, contacts shouldn't ever be something done in bulk like this anyways. The idea that a contract could be "Standardized" is silly. It is clearly not the result of a mutual discussion and agreement, but instead is an imposition by one party on the other.

Contracts of adhesion (unilateral contracts) are generally enforceable but they are "interpreted against the drafter" meaning that any ambiguity is interpreted in favor of the customer.

Click-through contracts are less likely to be enforceable than something bearing a physical signature. Add a little unconscionability and no court in the land would uphold that contract. If there even was a contract.

The magic word you're looking for, though, is Libel. These jokers deliberately published a false statement of fact to the credit reporting agencies with the intention of damaging the individual's reputation. That's a cha-ching if you take 'em to court.

However, this part of the story doesn't quite ring true for me. The credit reporting agencies don't like to accept reports without an SSN. Too high a risk they get applied to the wrong person. So how did folks paid via paypal get enough information to attach a complaint to the person's credit report? Maybe I just don't know enough about how the reporting agencies work but for darn sure there's nothing on my credit report from anyone who didn't have my SSN.

Your lawyer? Any real slashdotter would represent himself all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and change every other precedent set before them.
Just ask one, every true slashdot user knows more about the law than anybody else in the legal community.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, more importantly I am not your lawyer. This is not legal advise and should not be construed as such.

Your lawyer? Any real slashdotter would represent himself all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States and change every other precedent set before them.

Most maybe, but not all would do this. Maybe I'm not a "real" shashdotter, but I would NEVER recommend going to court as a litigant without competent legal advice. Trust me, I know from experience that it is NOT a good idea, even in traffic court.

What's that saying... A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client. It's true and I'm not doing that again..

The First Amendment is not relevant here. The First Amendment restricts Congress from passing laws that restrict freedom of speech. It doesn't restrict people from making contracts to restrict freedom of speech. That happens all the time and is perfectly legal.

It's not so much that as it is fraud. Claiming someone's responsible for a clause they never actually agreed to, and billing them for it is fraud. Submitting that bill to a collections agency is fraud and harassment. There shouldn't be a lawsuit. The operator of that site should be arrested. And then there should be a lawsuit.

Which is the whole reason why there's a bad review. Seems Kleargear would want to fix that transaction before spending buttloads on dubious litigation, and win the customer back. But they'll discover how both the Internet AND retail business works soon.

"In an effort to ensure fair and honest public feedback, and to prevent the publishing of libelous content in any form, your acceptance of this sales contract prohibits you from taking any action that negatively impacts KlearGear.com, its reputation, products, services, management or employees."

If there was never a completed sale, then do the sale terms even apply even if they hadn't of changed them later?

After submitting an article in which kleargear.com was referred to as "some sort of cheap ThinkGeek clone", Slashdot user sabri will be facing several thousand dollars in fines. The stupid asses at kleargear.com don't seem to realize that this sort of thing only gets them bad press. [Editors note: The remainder of this comment has been removed as kleargear.com is threatening Dice Holdings if defamation of their good name continues on our properties.]

Recently I purchased several items from KlearGear.com. Based on their purchase agreement, I can not post negative comments on the Internet about my experience. With that in mind, here is my KlearGear.com review;

I recently purchased several items from KlearGear.com. Their purchase agreement prohibits negative comments, so here is my review:

The can of SPAM® was greatly appreciated. It makes a much better doorstop than the one I ordered, because the metal shards really dig into the rug. Even better, unlike the boxes of SPAM® you buy at the grocery store, this one came with a large hole in the side, so I didn't even have to find a can opener before sucking out the meaty goodness.

The packaging was in impeccable condition, having only been run over by three UPS trucks—a far cry from the usual twelve. And their customer service can't be beaten. I only had to call 150 times over the course of a three month period to reach someone who helpfully pointed out that I could step on the can of SPAM® I received and use it as a doorstop. And the agents' language was truly amazing. I learned over a hundred new swear words in five languages.

In short, I cannot recommend this business more highly if you enjoy surprise delivery of products that do not resemble what you ordered and learning how to say f*** off in Swahili while talking to a customer service representative in Tanzania. I know I sure do.

She needs to go to http://cfpb.gov/ [cfpb.gov] right away and report this. It'll come off her credit reports ~30 days or so later. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau was setup for exactly this kind of thing.

Actually, the CFPD was set up to ensure that big banks will get bailed out the next time they make a high risk gamble with other people's money and it goes bad. However, they had to give is a name that made people think it was about protecting the little guy

Post publication investigations instituted by President T. Roosevelt found that every type incident described by Sinclair except workers falling into rendering vats and being sold as lard had actually occurred.

If everything is as described, sure, the woman has been mistreated. But on the other hand, she's using Ripoff Report. Slashdot has done an article about a case involving Ripoff Report before, and they themselves absolutely refuse to remove even false information, and then charge people money to dispute it. It's at least as bad as the company she's fighting.

Look it up. Here, I'll help you. Read the very links described here: "She contacted Ripoffreport.com to ask that the post be removed but Ripoffreport.com won't let her without paying $2000 she says."

The Streisand Effect is not a rule. It's a rarity. For every story that gets attention this way, there are millions that do not.

When I see a post on Slashdot about censorship backfiring, without fail, someone will blurt out "Streisand Effect" as if it is an inevitable thing that happens when censorship occurs on the Internet.

The trouble here is that assuming this is a rule and not a rare edge case brings with it the danger of promoting the idea that censorship is not able to occur on the Internet....as if it is inherently censor-proof. The sad thing is, censorship is very real. The stories that allow us to cry "ha ha Streisand Effect" are the exception. They are interesting and attention worthy, or simply lucky.

While I have absolutely no sympathy for all the hate that the keangear asshats will get from this, I just wish that ripoffreport.com would get their share of it. Did you know that if you pay them money, they will happily turn all the negative reports about your business into positive? They call it "Corporate Advocacy Program", but the real name of it should be "blackmail and extortion". Absolutely anyone can post anything about any business, be it true or a complete lie, and the business owner has absolutely no way for defending themselves. Except if you pay ripoffreport.com a few hundred bucks and then all negative reports go away. And they even claim that they will help place the newly positive reviews "at the top of search engines", whatever the hell that means. See, they do it to benefit the consumer and to assure the complete satisfaction, and not at all to blackmail small businesses and extort money from them:http://www.ripoffreport.com/CorporateAdvocacyProgram/Change-Report-From-Negative-To-Positive.aspx [ripoffreport.com]

Do you realize that credit reporting agencies are 'regulated' and that means absolutely nothing?

All that smoke and mirrors they put out about checking your credit report, and fixing errors, doesn't really happen. It is there ONLY so the consumer thinks credit reporting is fair. The fact is the credit reporting agency 1) makes more money from you 2) ignores your request to fix items. Why should they care? You CAN NOT sue them. Bet you didn't know that did you? Only a state's attorney Generals can sue a credit reporting agency. That is part of the deal they got to support fair credit laws in the first place. Like just about everything else in this country lately, they had a huge lobbying effort to exclude themselves from lawsuits, took all your representatives to steak and lobster dinner, and called it something that sounded like it was made to protect the consumer. IT IS NOT!

If you go through the trouble of writing them to correct something, they just send you a generic letter; "We do not understand your request." Since you can not sue, that is the end of it.

So the root of this problem is both the slimey business, but as much the slimey credit reporting agencies that make it a viable business model. Experian will even sell social securrity numbers to crooks now to make money;

Pretty much everything you stated is wrong. You can sue all three of the consumer credit reporting agencies in small claims court assuming you followed the processes outlined in the federal laws for consumer protection.

http://www.bankrate.com/brm/news/special/19990820.asp

Check out creditboards.com and the ficoforums.myfico.com and you will find multiple success stories of people suing one or more of the CRA's.

I can also say that from personal experience that merely making the threat to the CRA that you will be suing them in small claims court with proper citations will cause the CRA to fix their errors.

Apparently you didn't read the article. So I'll quote the part that matters.

"The Fair Credit Reporting Act, which governs credit reporting, says that only a state's attorney general can sue a creditor for furnishing inaccurate information. But if the creditor doesn't fix the inaccuracy permanently and in a reasonable time, you can sue, even though the Fair Credit Reporting Act doesn't explicitly give you that option."

The reason that people can sue is on the grounds of the CRA not fixing inaccurate information. The article makes it very clear that the public uses those grounds to sue, not the grounds of providing inaccurate information. So yes you can sue and it happens all the time, people win quite often against the CRA's when they do their homework. Especially effective in a few states like Texas and California where you can also use State level laws in addition to the federal.

Only the government can punish people. Civil courts strike down punitive (punishing) clauses in contracts. In court, it would be unenforceable. Also violates her 1st Amendment rights. kleargear's case has humiliating fail written all over it.

Follow the link to kutv. It mentions Ripoffreport asking a 2000 dollar fee to remove her feedback? An important point missing from the summary. Is this true? If so, why is this mentioned but not mentioned in Techdirt's article or otherwise followed up?

Isn't there a legitimate mechanism to be used when Kleargear, a company that tries too hard to be geeky, is alleged to lie to credit agencies? Kleargear seems to be a bit iffy. They plaster their site in "verified by x" badges. Buysafe? What the fuck is that? I don't know, but for some reason I'm reassured that this hitherto unknown company guarantees this site is inspected and monitored. They have a TRUSTe seal! Wow, they've promised to abide by security policies that'll most likely never be inspected. TRUSTe means fuck all positive. Oh, but wait. They carry a badge from inc.com! Meh, it's the LinkedIn of companies. I'm a professor at MIT, and I have a 14" dick. If you believe that then TRUSTe probably means something to you.

tl;dr: Kleargear is at best a company that protests far too much. Ripoffreport is as good a source of information as YouTube comments. Slashdot editors don't bother following any links,and Slashdot is somewhere between The Weekly World News and Heat magazine.

dx.com is DealExtreme. Say what you will about ThinkGeek's prices, when you order something from there it ships promptly and ends up at your door shortly thereafter. They also have good customer service. DealExtreme on the other hand has a somewhat more challenged reputation.

I ordered hundreds of dollars of equipment from dx.com/dealextreme.com over the years.

The absolute worst things that's happened to me is that something was out of stock, and they credited me for my order.

Say what you want about ordering things on the slow boat from China, but DX, overall, has pretty good customer service -- especially for a company that'll send you a $2.97 butane torch (filled with butane!) from Asia, shipping included.

Are you kidding? With the right lawyer (or DA, or even consumer protection agency), it's a great way for her to eviscerate kleargear.com for fraudulent practice.

The stupid 'you can't say we ripped you off even if we do, nyah nyah' clause that kleargear.com chucked into their site is patently unenforceable. It's like my dumbassed last employer who tried to force everyone laid off to sign a 'non-disparagement' clause, holding their severence pay ransom unless they did. (one phone call to my own lawyer right there in the office stopped that BS cold.)

By the way, it wouldn't take much to dispute the "fine" with the reporting agencies, either.

As for the negative publicity? Is the old fuckedcompany.com still running? I don't feel much like tickling the company proxy here to find out...

It's only "unenforceable" from a legal standpoint, but before it ever even sees a courtroom, it's already intimidated enough people to raise the company's BBB rating from an F to a B, and ruined other people's credit; the couple from TFA have been turned down for loans due to the credit hit they've taken because these guys sent that $3500 "penalty" to collections.

Why pay court costs for a judge to enforce your schemes when you can get the credit bureaus to do it for free?

Well then it seems the couple has suffered real financial harm. Hopefully they can quantify this and collect damages. I hate the sue-happy culture of the US these days, but this case demonstrates exactly what lawsuits are for.

There's no way the company can claim ignorance due to the facts:-The transaction was never completed, so the contract didn't apply-The contract at the time (that didn't apply anyway) didn't include the clause about reviews-The person attempting to purchase the item, and who would have been bound by the contract (but wasn't) wasn't the person who wrote the review

These are all facts that were plain at the time of the company's action; so in other words, they knowingly filed a false credit claim based on a non-existent clause in a contract that didn't apply to someone with whom they didn't do business anyway.

Our prisons are already full, so I think the appropriate penalty would be massive fines against the company, and all legal and executive personnel involved in this action, and if that can't be accurately determined, all legal and executive personnel.

But you are right, any lawyer could have a field day with them. Especially if the story summery is correct. If her husband purchased the gifts, then it would have been him not her that agreed to any EULA no matter how stupid it might have been. So by going after her, who hasn't even agreed to the terms, they are literally doing something fraudulent and possibly criminal to boot.